Blogography Logo
spacer

  Home  

Women

Posted on Saturday, March 26th, 2011

Dave!"Women. Can't live with 'em. Can't kill 'em!"
        — Albert "Gib" Gibson, True Lies

I have every reason to despise, distrust, and demonize women for being the heartbreaking angels of despair they sometimes turn out to be. But I don't. I simply know too many women who are remarkable and amazing people to believe in such lame generalities... despite my extreme bad luck in holding on to any kind of long-term relationship with any of them. Like most guys, I've had my share of women troubles. I've been taken advantage of. Cheated on. Lied to. Mistreated. Wronged. Abandoned. Abused. Lead on. Left out. Shafted. Screwed... well, you get the picture. The list goes on and on.

But I've also been in love with women, which somehow offsets all the pain and heartache I've suffered at their hands.

Which brings us to this...

Scott Adams, author of Dilbert, recently wrote a blog entry that was supposed to be an article about "men's rights." But he came across as a sexist asshole, thus infuriating every feminist on the internet. His ultimate advice to men was "Don't be pussies!"... or, at least it would have been if he hadn't turned around and deleted his post.

Like the pussy he is.

Gee, Mr. Adams, why not take your own fucking advice?

In the end, I don't necessarily disagree with some of the things that Scott Adams wrote. He actually had some insightful commentary about what it's like for us. He goes completely off the rails several times and makes absolutely no effort to look at anything from any viewpoint except his own, but the end-summary of his rant is not without merit in some instances.

And yet...

While his treatment of women was pretty shitty, it's his characterization of us men that ended up offending me most.

Because his perspective on things is from that of a famous millionaire. Sure he may be a geeky dweeb (like me!), but he's a geeky dweeb with a lot of money (not like me!). He's also married to a hottie, but it's worth noting that he married her well into his meteoric success as a cartoonist...

Scott Adams and Wife Marriage Photo
Photo by Drew Kristal, taken from People Magazine

Now, before I start getting hate-mail of my own, I should say that I'm sure he's a wonderful guy and she didn't marry him for his money. I'm sure she totally fell in love with him for his... err... charming demeanor and sense of humor. Or something. I mean, I don't know her, but just looking at this photo I can tell she's absolutely the type of person who would totally give a 49-year-old dweeb like Scott Adams the time of day even if he didn't have a bajillion dollars and world-wide fame. So there. I said it. She's totally not a gold-digging opportunist, okay? No need to attack me for being a misogynistic asshole who believes that beautiful, intelligent women are only capable of having millions of dollars if they marry into it. I am so not that guy.

Indeed, it's my fervent belief in this very ideal that allows me to get out of bed in the morning.

Anyway, if you care to read it, I've gone through Scott Adam's rant line by line in an extended entry. Not because I feel women need defending in any way, but because Adams turned out to be such a total dick that I feel the need to defend my gender.

And because stupidity makes me crazy.

SCOTT ADAMS, MARCH 7th, 2011 (since removed).

The topic my readers most want me to address is something called men’s rights. (See previous post.) This is a surprisingly good topic. It’s dangerous. It’s relevant. It isn’t overdone. And apparently you care.
— Dangerous? Really? I'd admire Adams for laughing in the face of "danger" here, but he eventually removed this post. Perhaps it's more appropriate to say that he farted in the face of "danger" then hid under the couch and blamed the dog.

Let’s start with the laundry list.
— Because nothing gets your point across faster than tossing out a "laundry list"... of six items.

According to my readers, examples of unfair treatment of men include many elements of the legal system, the military draft in some cases, the lower life expectancies of men, the higher suicide rates for men, circumcision, and the growing number of government agencies that are primarily for women.
— Already we're off to a shaky start. I'll give you that the legal system can be unfairly skewed towards women in the case of parental rights and some other situations... but MANY elements of the legal system? This seems like a gross overstatement. How many times have women who have been raped been subsequently treated like the cause of the attack rather than a victim of violence by the courts? How many times have powerful women gotten major punishment under the law for doing something that powerful men get away with all the time? Female criminals are held up and vilified to shocking extremes for offenses that men simply get ignored for. A woman kills somebody, it's 24-hour news for months. A man kills somebody under similar circumstances, it's one mention at the top of the second hour. Yes, women get a break compared to men in SOME areas, but it cuts both ways. If you want an unfair divide under the law, try taking a look at poor people vs. rich people! Not that being unfairly treated for being poor is ever going to be a concern for Scott Adams. And things just get crazier from here on out. The draft? Who made that law? Oh... let me see... rich white MEN did! The REALLY unfair part of the draft is all the loopholes that exist so that wealthy white sons are exempt. Where's the outcry from Adams for THAT? Then we get lower life expectancy? Higher suicide rates? Life is so unfair! Of course, wealthy people like Adams have better access to healthcare, so his lot in life is a little more fair than most. But hey, pregnant women have to watch their bodies blow up and go through the pain of childbirth because life is unfair, so whatcha gonna do? And then Adams drops the circumcision bomb... as if fathers have nothing to do with this decision whatsoever. Since Adams is an atheist, I guess you just have to outright dismiss religion as a reason for circumcision, but this happens to be a big part of some people's lives (and try taking a look at religion from a female perspective sometime, assuming you've got the stones for it). Also... one would assume that Scott Adams is fairly well-informed, but obviously not so much that he's heard of the sheer brutality of FEMALE circumcision. As for government agencies primarily for women... we have government agencies for EVERYTHING. I see nothing wrong with the unique health issues and challenges faced by women getting government agencies when we have a shit-load of agencies for anything else you can think of. And does women getting government agencies preclude men from getting agencies if they really wanted them? Take a quick poll of the number of men serving in government vs. the number of women serving in government and get back to me on that. And what agency would they form? An agency to study how we can get more men involved in government?

You might add to this list the entire area of manners. We take for granted that men should hold doors for women, and women should be served first in restaurants. Can you even imagine that situation in reverse?
— Again, Scott Adams is forgetting who created a society where men open doors for women... MEN DID! Apparently there was a time when men wanted to feel gallant by opening a door for a poor, frail, weak, hysterical woman. "Let's unburden these lesser creatures of the difficulty of opening doors, as that will surely compensate for them not having the right to vote while they cook our meals and wash our clothes!" Back when this tradition was invented, were women really in a position to dictate anything to a man? Maybe if she were the Queen. But for all we know, women wanted to open their own fucking doors, but men decided they couldn't. Yet, sadly, the days of men wanting to feel gallant seem to have passed, as a shocking number of men now-a-days won't even bother to open a door for a woman who's pregnant. I mean, seriously... doors and restaurants? That's all you've got to add to your argument?

Generally speaking, society discourages male behavior whereas female behavior is celebrated. Exceptions are the fields of sports, humor, and war. Men are allowed to do what they want in those areas.
— Okay then... male behavior is acceptable in SPORTS (because top male players get paid millions to play basketball, where top female players are lucky to get thousands?)... HUMOR (because everybody knows only men can be funny, women who try to be funny are just vulgar?)... and WAR (because it's just such a darn good excuse for men who think they rule the world to actually attempt it?). I know Scott Adams is trying to be funny here, but this "list" is laughable for numerous unfunny reasons. Primarily because it's so painfully incomplete. What about SEX? Men who like sex and fuck everything in sight are studs. Women who like sex and fuck everything in sight are whores. Hell, what about FARTING? Men let one rip and it's a funny story you can tell for years. If women were to fart like that, they'd be branded disgusting dregs of society. I don't know whether to pity Scott Adams because he's just so stupid as to believe that we don't live in a male-dominated society where just about ANYTHING men do is accepted... or instead pity him because he tries for an easy joke which isn't even remotely funny.

Add to our list of inequities the fact that women have overtaken men in college attendance. If the situation were reversed it would be considered a national emergency.
— Or the status quo. One of those two. I mean, who wants to spend money to send a silly GIRL to college? What good is higher education to somebody who belongs in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, right?

How about the higher rates for car insurance that young men pay compared to young women? Statistics support this inequity, but I don’t think anyone believes the situation would be legal if women were charged more for car insurance, no matter what the statistics said.
— Actually, I do believe it. Statistics have historically been used to support all kinds of abhorrent shit in our laws. To claim otherwise is to be ignorant of our history which, for Scott Adams seems to begin in the 1920's. And if abhorrent shit is acceptable in our laws, why not insurance? If statistics showed that women were crappier drivers, the insurance agencies would absolutely be able to justify charging them more. Hell, women are already charged more for health insurance thanks to statistics, why should car insurance be any different?

Women will counter with their own list of wrongs, starting with the well-known statistic that women earn only 80 cents on the dollar, on average, compared to what men earn for the same jobs. My readers will argue that if any two groups of people act differently, on average, one group is likely to get better results. On average, men negotiate pay differently and approach risk differently than women.
— Which is a piece of cake when it's men who own the playing field. If a woman tries to negotiate for higher pay, she'll probably lose out to a male candidate asking for that same money. But, regardless, what Adams is saying here is that men succeed in the workplace because they have the guts to take risks to get ahead which women simply do not possess. Which is absolutely true. And understandable when you consider that the consequences of taking such risks are far greater for women than men. If a woman in business takes a big risk and fails, she doesn't just fail for herself... she fails for all women in business everywhere. Her failure will be elevated to a shining example of why women don't belong in corporate America. Which is crazy unfair, of course. But I'll tell you what... put a woman in business where the consequences for failure are equal to a man and just see who has the balls to take risks and go the distance. To say women don't have the guts to make the tough decisions would be a laughable statement when applied to a lot of the women I know. Of course, I'm a dweeb who doesn't have millions of dollars and worldwide fame, so I'm guessing that women (and men, for that matter) act a bit differently around me than they do Scott Adams.

Women will point out that few females are in top management jobs. Men will argue that if you ask a sample group of young men and young women if they would be willing to take the personal sacrifices needed to someday achieve such power, men are far more likely to say yes. In my personal non-scientific polling, men are about ten times more likely than women to trade family time for the highest level of career success.
— Absolutely. But you don't think that if a woman had the option of letting the men bear the children so they could go off and have a career that they wouldn't leap at the chance? Well, not all of them would... just like some men want nothing more than to be fathers, there are women who want nothing more than to be mothers. But lets get real here. If a couple wants to start a family, the one with the uterus is getting the job. She gets to take nine months out of her life to have a baby because she's got the proper tools for the task at hand. You want to talk about how society is unfair to men... let's at least not be stupid about it. If instead of having babies, a couple decides to adopt kids and have the man stay home and take care of the children... what about the stigma he has to face for "doing a woman's job?" Oh... that's right... it's the MEN of society which would make him feel like a failure for that!

Now I would like to speak directly to my male readers who feel unjustly treated by the widespread suppression of men’s rights:
— Or the delusion that this male dominated society affords them no rights to begin with.

Get over it, you bunch of pussies.
— Which is easy for him to say... Scott Adams has millions of dollars! He can be the biggest pussy on earth and his money still affords him power over the huddled masses.

The reality is that women are treated differently by society for exactly the same reason that children and the mentally handicapped are treated differently. It’s just easier this way for everyone. You don’t argue with a four-year old about why he shouldn’t eat candy for dinner. You don’t punch a mentally handicapped guy even if he punches you first. And you don’t argue when a women tells you she’s only making 80 cents to your dollar. It’s the path of least resistance. You save your energy for more important battles.
— See? What a fucking pussy! Note that he's not saying "WE"... he's saying YOU save YOUR energy. He doesn't have to save shit because he makes a THOUSAND DOLLARS to your one dollar! This right here is the most offensive part of his entire stupid manifesto. The same rules which apply to those of us in typical American society don't even remotely apply to Scott Adams, and yet he's acting as if they do. So go ahead, Scott, punch that handicapped guy... you can hire a team of lawyers to take care of it. I'm sure he'd argue "just because the rules don't apply to me doesn't mean this isn't true for others!" Which is absolutely correct. Except I don't punch the handicapped guy NOT because it's the path of least resistance, but because I have a lick of fucking sense in my head to realize that there are extenuating circumstances in play. Sometimes being a man is resisting the urge to punch that handicapped guy* specifically because it's the path of MOST resistance. So why don't you save your pussy ramblings about manhood for your fellow pussies, you pussy.
   
*You do know this has evolved into a metaphor, right? I'm not talking about an actual handicapped guy here.

How many times do we men suppress our natural instincts for sex and aggression just to get something better in the long run? It’s called a strategy. Sometimes you sacrifice a pawn to nail the queen. If you’re still crying about your pawn when you’re having your way with the queen, there’s something wrong with you and it isn’t men’s rights.
— Yes. Way to point out the obvious you stud-muffin, you. This is indeed a "strategy" employed by most males because it's the only shot they've got. I fully admit to putting up with all kinds of stuff from women because even the slightest hint of a sexual payoff is enough to "curtail my aggression" from telling her to piss off. But YOU don't have to curtail shit. YOU get to write rants like this bashing women and still nail the queen because of the slightest hint of a MONETARY payoff! Enter exhibit A...

Scott Adams and Wife Marriage Photo

I mean, if Scott Adams is some kind of maniac in the sack with a 12-inch penis and the stamina of a wildebeest, then I have to apologize here. But guys like this (like me!) don't generally get to be a douche towards women and still get to "nail the queen." Instead they end up sitting in a house with a bunch of cats or something.*

Scott Adams plus Cats!

*Cat-lovers, unleash your hate-mail!

Fairness is an illusion. It’s unobtainable in the real world. I’m happy that I can open jars with my bare hands. I like being able to lift heavy objects. And I don’t mind that women get served first in restaurants because I don’t like staring at food that I can’t yet eat.
— Your ability to open a jar notwithstanding, I'm sure women know nothing about this "Fairness Illusion" of which you speak (he says rolling his eyes into the back of his head).

If you’re feeling unfairly treated because women outlive men, try visiting an Assisted Living facility and see how delighted the old ladies are about the extra ten years of pushing the walker around. It makes dying look like a bargain.
— Yes. Fair is fair. Obviously women are just getting what they deserve here. THAT will teach them to outlive men! (P.S. If I am lucky enough to get married, I seriously hope that it doesn't end up being so bad that I go to my grave grateful that my wife has ten years of pain and suffering ahead of her. You're a lucky woman, Mrs. Scott Adams!)

I don’t like the fact that the legal system treats men more harshly than women. But part of being male is the automatic feeling of team. If someone on the team screws up, we all take the hit. Don’t kid yourself that men haven’t earned some harsh treatment from the legal system. On the plus side, if I’m trapped in a burning car someday, a man will be the one pulling me out. That’s the team I want to be on.
— The only reason I'd pull your egotistical ass out of a burning car is the hint of a monetary payoff (and here you thought only women got to play that game... shame on you!). Though I have to wonder if letting you go up in flames would net me the bigger payday from your grateful wife's inheritance. Look, I am the first to admit that men get shitted on by our legal system. If THAT were your argument, I'd take one look at my friend killing himself with two jobs just so he can pay child support for kids he rarely gets to see (after his ex-wife cheated on him)... and then agree with you. It's not fair. It's not right. But don't play the fucking martyr on behalf of men everywhere and act as if the legal system is some kind of utopia for women. Especially for poor, minority women when compared to wealthy, white assholes such as yourself.

I realize I might take some heat for lumping women, children and the mentally handicapped in the same group. So I want to be perfectly clear. I’m not saying women are similar to either group. I’m saying that a man’s best strategy for dealing with each group is disturbingly similar. If he’s smart, he takes the path of least resistance most of the time, which involves considering the emotional realities of other people. A man only digs in for a good fight on the few issues that matter to him, and for which he has some chance of winning. This is a strategy that men are uniquely suited for because, on average, we genuinely don’t care about 90% of what is happening around us.
— And this is why you will continue to be a pussy for the rest of your life. You have the luxury of not caring about 90% of what is happening around you because you're a millionaire and famous. Such a ridiculous observation from your perspective is totally valid. But don't even pretend to be speaking for all men with that horse shit. Real men pay attention to a lot more than 10% of what's going on around them. Not because they want to, but because they HAVE to. They pay attention or else they get fired. They pay attention or else they get divorced. They pay attention or else their kids go hungry. In your mind, this makes them stupid. But reality dictates they're actually just being smart. They pay attention because they don't have a million dollars in the bank which says that they don't have to pay attention.
   
What's most disturbing here is how Scott Adams says men should just roll over and give in to silly women's emotional demands because it's easier that way. Wrong. It's far, far easier to just walk away and not deal with women at all. But not all of us have unlimited funds for hookers and the money necessary for attracting a wife who will overlook our being an asshole. We can't all be Charlie Sheen. So we play the game. We do shit we don't want to do... we go places we don't want to go... we hang out with people we don't want to hang out with. We do it because it's what we have to do to get what we want out of a relationship (which is not always sex... sometimes we are just happy knowing we are making our women happy). But it's the height of hypocrisy to suggest that women don't end up doing the same damn thing so they can get what they want out of a relationship. You want to talk about taking the path of least resistance? Talk to a woman having to deal with some horny bastard she's dating. I'd love to think that women I date give in and have sex with me because they just can't get enough of my sweet, sweet, loving... but I'm not so delusional as to believe that sometimes they give in just because it's easier than saying no to the never-ending badgering.
   
In the end, it's not that women are disturbingly similar to children and the mentally handicapped, it's that they're becoming disturbingly similar to us. To men. That we have such a problem with this and end up making arguments for "men's rights" when all women really want is to be treated equally... well, that pretty much says it all. The question becomes whether you're man enough to deal with it, or whether you're Scott Adams.

• • •

What pisses me off most about this stupid rant is how it undermines the very real struggles than men have in modern society. It sacrifices the important stuff so it can inflate the ridiculous. As I mentioned, I think men are treated grossly unfairly when it comes to parental rights. I think men are more often than not totally fucked by the legal system when it comes to divorce. Those are very real specific issues. But by generalizing that men are victims of oh so many sexist laws that strip us of our rights, we lose. You end up implying that women don't have to pay as many parking tickets (or whatever), thus the seriousness of the situation is lost. Arguments like this make it so that men are even more screwed because it paints us as lamenting the fact that we can't punch handicapped people when all we really want is not to be hopelessly fucked financially if our wives cheat on us and we want a divorce because of it.

Men have overwhelming expectations put upon them every single day. It's a condition which has been built up over generations of our society's customs and traditions. It's so bad that the pressure of it all can be almost impossible to bear at times. Failure, after all, is not just an outcome, it's a reflection on your manhood. But we're not allowed to let women try and understand that, so they don't really understand us. Instead all women have to go on is stupid shit like Scott Adams comparing them to dealing with children and the handicapped for daring to want equal pay.

And I'm sick of it. So fucking sick of it.

And it's not because I'm jealous of Scott Adam's success. No. He worked very hard for everything he has and overcame a lot of crap to get where he's at. More power to him. But he does, in fact, have a fuck-ton of money and regular circumstances do not apply. He can write crazy shit without consequences, and that's great. For him. But don't presume to lump me in with your bullshit, because I don't have that luxury. I still have to play the game.

And here's the hard truth of it all... I don't mind playing the game.

At this point in my life, I'm not wanting a woman whose only interest is what I can buy her. I'm not looking for a woman who I have to keep entertained 24/7. I'm not seeking out a woman who wants me to make all the decisions. I'm not interested in a woman who's totally passive in a relationship and can't hold an opinion of her own.

I want a partner.

I want someone who will share in the joy and hurt of it all.

I want someone who will excite me with their ideas and challenge me with their opinions.

I want someone who will make me a better man.

And I'm not going to get there by sitting around whining because life is so unfair for men because women live longer or get served first in some fucking restaurant. What man does this? If playing the victim in an arena where I have so many advantages is what constitutes this "team" Scott Adams is thrilled to be a part of, then count me out. I'm much happier being a free agent.

Not to say that I would pass up a million-dollar contract to be on a team.

I may be a stupid man, but I'm not crazy.

Tags: , ,
Categories: DaveLife 2011Click To It: Permalink
   

Comments

  1. Sybil Law says:

    Dillhole might be a better name for that comic strip.
    Seriously – maybe he was trying to be funny, but he comes off dumb as nine chickens. And yes – like a total, elitist pussy.

  2. noraisins says:

    You are right. The struggles than men face are unfair and undervalued. Also, I have no doubt that the woman you are looking for does exist. Just keep looking.

  3. Cricket says:

    Very well said. My opinion of Mr. Adams has plummeted as fast as my opinion of you has risen.

  4. Paul says:

    I have to say, you really have hit the nail on the head with this one. Honestly, men have problems in society, so does everyone else! There is no point in writing a rant which inflates the problem for your own ends, it’s simply a menial and degrading reflection on the rest of us ‘men’ who he’s so callously lumped together. Thank you for putting your opinion out there about this, because it makes me feel just a little bit better, knowing that another ‘man’ (to put it bluntly) is as aware of the fact that Scott Adams’ blog is such a menial and condescending view of the world with no basis in the normal person’s life…

  5. Poppy says:

    All those things that women have done to you men have done to me.

    And even now that I have found my one the struggles don’t stop. We just decide to grow together and if we make a mistake we choose to apologize, figure out why it happened, figure out how to not let it happen again, and kiss and make up.

    Life is full of people who don’t know how to get it right the first time, full of people who learned by shitty example from other people who learned by shitty example. When you find the “right” person you’ll want to learn and grow together and you will be genuinely sorry when you accidentally hurt each other… or intentionally hurt each other because you’re hurt.

    I could give a shit about Scott Adams’s opinion about women, but I don’t.

  6. Lisa says:

    Very well said. I knew I didn’t like Dilbert cartoons for a reason.

  7. RW says:

    Scott Adams. Well, I don’t read Dilbert. Didn’t know the name of the person who created it. Didn’t care. And once again I will say – I, am a nobody. And if even a nobody hasn’t heard of you that makes you a…. what, exactly? Nothing. And I have no bloody idea what the hell he’s talking about.

  8. Sarah says:

    Well said Dave. I knew I hearted you for a reason. (Well many reasons but this is a good one.)

  9. Megan says:

    Love your commentary. Hope you find a women who’s worthy of you and gives back as good as she gets.

    Life is unfair for all of us times. I tend to believe it’s probably a wash in the end.

  10. whall says:

    I would ask how long it took to write that, but it doesn’t matter. Sounds like it means a lot, given the time you put in.

    But in the end, it still sounds like a lot of whining, on both ends. Him. The people in an uproar. I long for a time where people are too busy doing to worry and write about what other people do.

    I believe it’s scheduled to come about sometime in Dec next year…

    • Dave2 says:

      It probably took as long for me to write it as it did for you to read it. I write pretty darn fast.

      In any event, you don’t seem to blog anymore, so perhaps you’ve forgotten… but a blog is a place specifically TO comment with your opinion on something. I found his piece to be not very funny and skippable. Then he removed it. Then he countered with this:

      Is this an entire website dedicated to poor reading comprehension? I don’t think one of you understood the writing. You’re all hopping mad about your own misinterpretations.

      That’s the reason the original blog was pulled down. All writing is designed for specific readers. This piece was designed for regular readers of The Scott Adams blog. That group has an unusually high reading comprehension level.

      In this case, the content of the piece inspires so much emotion in some readers that they literally can’t understand it. The same would be true if the topic were about gun ownership or a dozen other topics. As emotion increases, reading comprehension decreases. This would be true of anyone, but regular readers of the Dilbert blog are pretty far along the bell curve toward rational thought, and relatively immune to emotional distortion.

      I’ve written on the topic how you can’t mix incendiary images in the same piece without the readers’ brains treating the images as though they were connected, no matter how clearly you explain that they are not. My regular readers understand that I do that intentionally as part of the fun. When quoted out of context, the piece becomes dangerous.

      You can see that the comments about the piece were little more than name-calling. When confronted with that sort of reaction, would it be wiser to treat the name-callers as you might treat respected professors with opinions worthy of consideration, or should you treat the name-callers as you would angry children, by not debating and not taking it personally?

      You’re angry, but I’ll bet every one of you agrees with me.

      He’s basically calling them stupid, then saying they can’t bother to read anything without getting all emotional and hysterical. Which, on a blog for feminists is just HYSTERICAL in context! (Get it? They’re stupid, emotional, hysterical women!). He then excuses everything by saying that they’ve taken his writing OUT of context. Well, what an asshole. If context is everything, then he’s just made him self look like a major dumbass. And, as I said, stupidity makes me crazy.

      Because, in all seriousness, what context is there, other than his rant was posted on a man’s blog? All it is just a bunch of writing with an occasional cartoon.

      Oh… wait a second… JUST LIKE MINE!

      So, after he PULLED THE POST and wrote the above response slamming women even further and making men look like even bigger assholes, I decided it would be funny to analyze his content in the context of a man’s blog with cartoons. And here we are. The difference being that you allow Scott Adams massive leeway to be sarcastic and funny, but not me (come on, that dog farting in the face of danger joke was darn funny!). Though how you can do this as he’s comparing women wanting equal pay to children and the mentally handicapped, I’ll never know (how is that funny in any context?). I guess he’s “a professional” so he gets an automatic pass?

      But, as I said (if YOU had any reading comprehension?) is that I actually agree with him on some points. I understood that he was trying to be funny. But, to me and a lot of other people (apparently), he failed. By part or in whole.

      In all honesty, I never would have posted any of this if he hadn’t written that stupid-ass response on Feministe. He cries “context” when he doesn’t seem to have a clue as to what that means, and THAT’S what I found funny. That’s why I decided to put his comments in the TRUE context of where they are actually coming from… that Scott Adams is a rich and famous dweeb who doesn’t have to worry about the consequences of what he says like most guys on the planet do.

      So I get it… you’re a Scott Adams fan. Thanks for wasting your time worrying about what I write and what I do to leave a comment!

      • whall says:

        I just wish people would stop getting their panties in a wad over other people’s actions. Even the web 2.0 advancement of two-way communications and opinion gathering has dwindled down to chatty cathy and the gossip-trumps-all attitude. It’s just evolved a little more technologically, but has worsened the human condition along the way.

        Used to be, a few big networks and newspapers (less than a dozen shot-callers) controlled the gossip. When you talked around the water-cooler about so-and-so, or complained about this-and-that, it was only to your friends and didn’t get a wide distribution. Now, millions have voices, some anonymous and some not-so-anonymous.

        There are constantly people hating online about Rebecca Black. About Justin Bieber. About Dick Cheney, Obama, Kanye, Mel Gibson, Westboro, AT&T, Apple, Microsoft, Nike… you name it, people are basically gossiping.

        It’s distracting them from reality. They’re just writing about a bunch of perceptions, compounding on one another, adding on the labels and stereotypes until nothing is actually real anymore. I bet 99% of your readers walked away from this with the big label of Scott Adams Bad, Sexist Weak Man. Almost all of news, blogs, print, etc are designed to whittle down the facts to a small series of 3-5 labels smushed together, which usually and conveniently tie in to (and thereby strengthen) the readers/consumers/viewers’ pre-conceived notions about their perceptions of those labels.

        And you know what? I think our current society (government, large corporations) is _designed_ to promote that conflict. Distract the 99% of society who are supposed to be the backbone (workers, parents, children, retired) so they continue being cogs in this spiraling wheel of decay.

        Who benefits from the conflict presented on the news? What inspires you to act? What gets your emotions up?

        HATE. ENVY. FEAR.

        News shows. Blogs. Commenters. Newspaper articles. They nurture the conflict. They feed it because it feeds back. It brings Sponsors. Readers. Subscribers. Viewers.

        I’m not saying Scott Adams is all that, or right, or you’re wrong in your dissection / analysis. I don’t know what I’m saying (as usual). Unlike a lot of people, I’m not on my way to a point to get across. I don’t understand my own point yet.

        I just know I see a ton of complaining online, everywhere. Some of it is legitimate (heh, like I’m qualified to define that!), but most of it seems like wasted busy work to me. And more and more, I’m seeing it as designed to point people’s attentions at other people instead of themselves. When will people start worrying about their own actions instead of a) caring about other people’s actions and b) wanting to influence other people’s abilities to do their own actions via legislation.

        And yes, I’m talking about GOP too.

        Ok I’ve typed long enough. I’m assimilating too much!

        • Dave2 says:

          Again, as I said, I was perfectly willing to walk away from all of this and just chalk it up to Scott Adams not realizing he was trying to be funny while actually being a jerk.

          It wasn’t until he posted that asinine response on Feministe that I decided to write something. He was basically using context to call women stupid, emotional, and hysterical all while saying HIS comments were taken out of context. Now he’s gone BEYOND trying to be funny to just being an asshole. Even worse, he thinks he’s so smart that nobody realizes it.

          And that’s when I felt I had to say something in response. And since that’s what my blog is for, that’s what I chose to do.

          If my readers draw an opinion from this entry that I feel Scott Adams is a “Bad, Sexist Weak Man” then I’ve actually managed to express my opinions clearly for once. I think his response on Feministe made him exactly that.

          What I honestly don’t understand here is your attitude that people are just supposed to shut-up and let things blow by when they find something to be wrong and offensive. Under what conditions am I supposed to sit on my opinion? If it’s somebody famous like Scott Adams? If it’s a cartoonist? If it’s somebody you like? Do I check with you from here on? What?

          This entry wasn’t some random jab out of nowhere. It was written specifically to address things that I found reprehensible and offensive in the way that Scott Adams handled the response to the criticism he got. He DIDN’T say “look, you’re missing the point, this was supposed to be funny”… he lashed out in a way I found to be a hugely sexist and offensive. As a man, I am sick and tired of assholes like Scott Adams making my life more difficult, and so I decided to say so. I wasn’t going to just let it blow by… he DESERVED a response.

          And that’s exactly what this blog is for.

          So while I agree that baseless attacks and the never-ending HATE ENVY FEAR machine is growing tiresome, I also feel that being able to respond to HATE ENVY FEAR is necessary. Otherwise, people like Scott Adams get to dictate one-sided arguments and agendas, and that’s not good for anybody.

          • whall says:

            Look, I just want my collection of signed Dilbert merchandise to not lose value. You’re ruining my retirement and my kids’ college money! Why are you such a heartless monster, stealing from my kids?

            [I think we’ve evolved from the need for smiley faces]

            Seriously, though – I’m definitely not saying you shouldn’t post this or that, or to imply your blog isn’t the right place for anything. My initial comment is about the conflict from him and the typical commenters who “react to him”. It’s the reaction that continues his name or action in the public eye.

            By writing this blog post, you’ve given him more attention. So many blog posts and so many comments across the Internet are about complaining about something, pointing out what’s wrong with X or Y person / religion / law / politician / musician / tvshow / lifestyle or whatever. It’s energy that only ends up strengthening the very thing you’re “against”, even though it appears on the surface to be strengthening the opposition.

            Who knows? Maybe that was his goal all along. Publicity revives sales. Pulling the post generates more interest, both “good” and “bad”. I tell you what, advertiser revenue sure as heck shot up both on his site AND the Feministe… what agent wouldn’t pass up that opportunity… especially if they could tell the advertisers beforehand “we’ve got something cooked up for you – watch the next couple of weeks. The controversy we’ve staged will quadruple the visitors, so you’ll want to book your ads today…”

            I wonder what deals go on at ABC/CNN/CBS/FOX/NBC when they decide to blow the nuclear disaster facts out of proportion in Japan… danger, fear, excitement… all sells 10 times the ads with everyone glued to the TV to see what’s going on. The tsunami in Indonesia a few years back killed almost 300,000 people.. the Japanese one is

            I don’t blame them, though. I blame the consumers – they’re too stupid/numb/lazy most of the time to look for facts vs distortion.

            “People get the government they deserve”. I also apply that to “People get the media they deserve.”

            I just hope you don’t think I’m here drumming up conflict just to get more people to vote for my wife’s artwork entry. :)

            (see what I did there?)

          • Dave2 says:

            Yeah… like my stupid blog could have any effect on his popula…

            …wait… did you just call my readers stupid, numb, and lazy?!?

    • Cricket says:

      I didn’t find it funny either. If people don’t laugh, it’s not funny. I’ll bet Mr. Adams makes faces at the handicapped and then lashes out when they don’t see the humor in it, because they, of course, took what he did out of context.

  11. whall says:

    Wow – next up in my feed reader was Scott Adam’s blog entry. And he’s talking about you!

    I also didn’t predict that critics would reprint the post one component at a time so they could dissect it, which has the fascinating effect of changing the humorous tone to something hideous.

    You’re Internet famous!

  12. Barnmaven says:

    In truth, I see the idiocy of Scott Adams duplicated in a disturbingly large number of women as well. I see people who treat relationships as a percentage game. I suppose its easy to be jaded when our lives are inundated with “reality” shows like “Real” Housewives and The Bachelor and Jersey Shore…all of which only underscore the perception that both men and women are vain, greedy, shallow and grasping.

    I’m just glad that beyond all of that, there are still men out there who don’t think like Scott Adams. That there are women out there who don’t see men as a meal ticket or someone from another planet who they’ll never hope to be able to understand – that there are people out there who are capable of having real, committed relationships that don’t involve game-playing and one-upmanship.

    Keep the hope alive, Dave.

  13. delmer says:

    “Women. Can’t live with them… pass the beer nuts.”

    Norm Peterson

  14. I know I have said this before, but I love the way you think. Thank you for being the person you are. I can’t think of a good way to explain how highly I think of you, and what a great person you are so I’ll just leave this as it is and hope you understand.

  15. Avitable says:

    When did he go from being insightful to just inciting?

Add a Comment

Blankatar!

   
I love comments! However, all comments are moderated, and won't appear until approved. Are you an abusive troll with nothing to contribute? Don't bother. Selling something? Don't bother. Spam linking? Don't bother.
PLEASE NOTE: My comment-spam protection requires JavaScript... if you have it turned off or are using a mobile device without JavaScript, commenting won't work. Sorry.




   


   


   
   
   
Your personal information is optional. Email addresses are never shown, and are only used by me if a public reply would be too personal or inappropriate here. The URL link to your web site or blog will be provided, so only fill this in if you want people to visit!



   

  Home  

spacer
Welcome:
Blogography is a place to learn and grow by exposing yourself to the mind of David Simmer II, a brilliant commentator on world events and popular culture (or so he claims).
Dave FAQ:
Frequently Asked Questions
Dave Flickr Gallery:
Dave Contact:
dave@blogography.com
Blogography Webfeeds:
Entries Feed
Comments Feed
Dave Social:
Blogography Tumblr
Blogography Instagram
Blogography on Pinterest
translate me
lost & found
Search Blogography:
thrice fiction
Thrice Fiction Magazine - March, 2011 - THE END
I'm co-founder of Thrice Fiction magazine. Come check us out!
free iphone app
Ask Dave iPhone App
Put Dave in your pocket with this FREE app for iPhone and iPod Touch. All life's answers await you with the Ask Dave app!
dave tweets
hard rock moment
Visit DaveCafe for my Hard Rock Cafe travel journal!
travel picto-gram
Visit my travel map to see where I have been in this world!
mobile photos
Visit my Flickr Page
Subscribe to my Mobile Feed
badgemania
Blogography Badge
Atom Syndicate Badge
Comments Syndicate Badge
Apple Safari Badge
Pirate's Booty Badge
Macintosh Badge
license
All content copyright ©2003-2014
by David Simmer II
   
Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under
a Creative Commons License.